Topic: Bounty hunters killed ICO? - page 13. (Read 7081 times)
Am not really surprised to see this Post, everything about the failure of a project is all attributed to Bounty hunters. Like seriously what's the % that is been allocated to bounty even when token is locked for months and price still dumps, hunters are the reason for it. Hunters are not the reason for the failure of ICO but rather lack of business focus
Rather, the main reason of failure is the lack of business expertise. Majoriy of the successful ICO failed at sustaining their business because of the lack of expertise! It has no relation with bounty hunters.
Very good answer.Somehow all decided that all the troubles to blame the participants of the bounty.But in fact, not a competent distribution of funds and the lack of desire to develop the project actually lead to its collapse.So it is safe to say that in most cases the team that conducted the ICO is to blame.
Not really. Bounty allocation are usually very little when compared to what is offered to investors. Infact I believe investors have more reason to sell once ico project gets listed because they spent money and expect returns compared to bounty hunters who may decide to hold for higher profits
This possibly can't be true, it's true most hunters sell off but the quantity allocated for bounty is very minute, that can't affect the price of the token, have you considered private investors who get lots of token for little amount? Bounty hunters shouldn't be blame
1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
Sentiments aside, developers killed ICO, of there are thousands of ICO, does developers not out limit on each of them? And what exactly is even the allocation of bounty hunters that it would make the price of ICO always drop when they want to withdraw what they are entitled to. Common, anytime I hear this talk, it hangers me, how do you get someone to work for you and you expect them not to get paid immediately? 2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
Is this how the normal industries works in real life, that same project, if they were to have a physical presence, would they tell their workers not to withdraw their salaries because they don’t want their share capital to drop? Bull shit, you better talk to those you need to talk too which are the developers, they are the ones not pushing their project and also getting it attractive to the public.
1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
I remember how in 2017, many were happy that BH sold their tokens at a low price and bought them, today there is no demand for tokens at all, therefore we observe a price dump even from the sale of a very small number of tokens. Most likely this is not the fault of the bounty hunters, but that the scheme with the value of tokens does not work at all today. 2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
It seems very wrong to blame prize hunters for causing the reduction in token prices after being listed on the market, we know that the ICO project allocates funds to bounty hunters just a fraction of the percentage of their funds, so, it is unlikely that tokens obtained by bounty participants can affect the decline in the price of the token that is there is in the market.
I totally disagree that bounty hunters kill ICO projects, funds allocated for bounty hunters are very small,and such fingers shouldn't be pointed at hunters, also teams should consider the exchanges they list, and also how to sustain their market.
bounty hunter totally support ICO projects.if they called as killer in any ICO this is not fully true.price depend on market mechanism and if developers team could deliver good products, investors prefer to hold their asset although price dumped by hunter that get it freely. 
If bounty hunters usually get 5-10% out of whole token circulation, part of them decides to hold, then how can the rest manage to drop price? Specially when all of them dont sell their bounty tokens at the same time.
And on average, bounty hunters are paid about two percent of the total number of issued tokens. Therefore, in the fall in the price of new tokens on the exchange, the role and fault in this bounty hunter is very small. The collapse of the price of new tokens is primarily by investors who buy tokens at the initial stage of the ICO with very large price discounts. If the ICO project is mediocre, investors immediately sell tokens, earning up to 200 percent profit in a short time.ICO teams need to come up with a system of passive income from the received tokens, so that their holders make sense to keep them and see real profit. Now, basically, the price of new tokens immediately after entering the exchange drops, and it falls by dozens, and sometimes hundreds of times.
As for the activities of the ICO in general, this activity is still quite alive, but it requires reasonable regulation and further development.
I totally disagree that bounty hunters kill ICO projects, funds allocated for bounty hunters are very small,and such fingers shouldn't be pointed at hunters, also teams should consider the exchanges they list, and also how to sustain their market.
In my opinion its not true. We can not blame only bounty hunters for ICOs failures because bounty distribution to the bounty hunters in most of the projects are just 2-5% only and I believe only 5% token holder can not drop the token price even I believe early investor are also sold their coins early because they bought the coins with huge bonuses as well.
The bounty hunters are not the responsible for killing of any ICOs because they are only few fraction of the share of the whole project. What ever the funds for the project allocation from it's only 1% or less is allocated for the bounties. So, how they are the responsible for the project.
please don't always blame us, we bounty hunters only accept a very small number of tokens, even the distribution of tokens for bounty hunters is often deducted from the promised allocations, then some distribution projects are carried out in several phases, and some of them are locked on our wallet.
then? what should we continue to blame?
we are always blamed for dumping. but if you think about the rations for the bounty hunters only a little. if we can blame it, of course they hold most of the funds and resilience should not be affected by the sale of rewards by bounty huntersthen? what should we continue to blame?
full member
Activity: 468
Merit: 100
The world’s first Play, Learn and Earn
I will start by asking how many percentage of the token is allocated to bounty hunters, some as low as 2%, I think maximum I have seen is 5%. Now tell me how that will affect a project. Most at times even before the tokens are distributed to hunters, the price already dipped. So I don't believe that hunters killed ICO
I completely agree, 2-5% can not affect the value of the token in any way, I think that the question is not in the project itself, rather in its value 
please don't always blame us, we bounty hunters only accept a very small number of tokens, even the distribution of tokens for bounty hunters is often deducted from the promised allocations, then some distribution projects are carried out in several phases, and some of them are locked on our wallet.
then? what should we continue to blame?
then? what should we continue to blame?
I hate when team blame hunters for their token dumps. The money they give to hunters is part of their marketing budget and if they don't want to use hunters, they should advertise on google ads and coinmarket cap. Although BM must do their due diligence to guard against bounty cheaters.
It's funny how people tend to blame bounty hunters for everything when a token price drops, even in the instances where bounty hunters has not yet received the tokens for the work they did, they are still blamed for the dump in price anyways.
Bounty hunters has nothing to do with price dump in my opinion because most projects allocate less than 1% of the total tokens to bounty campaigns.
Bounty hunters has nothing to do with price dump in my opinion because most projects allocate less than 1% of the total tokens to bounty campaigns.
Well yea bounty hunters can bring to a fall in price of any project token. This happens if the project didn't do their home work well to know how hunters behave if tokens are distributed all at once.
most of it is true but remember that not everything is like that, after all you can't say that bounty hunters are the main cause of project failure or token prices, because if the problem is due to the excessive amount of bounties then this problem should be easily resolved by how to limit the number of participants then if the problem is because many tokens have been provided for bounty hunters, then this problem is also easy to overcome, namely by providing an appropriate allocation, not excessive or too little
False, because prize hunters never kill ico, because hunters also want a good ico when they join the ico project, and the ico allocation for prize hunters is also very small, so they don't kill ico.
Jump to: